Hawke v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
253 U.S. 221 · 1920
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 27 district · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)
19 federal appellate · 27 district · 99 state decisions — followed in 30 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Dodge v. Woolsey · State of Ohio on Relation of David Davis v. Charles Q Hildebrant · Hollingsworth v. Virginia
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require ■changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner, in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. “This article makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states; thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. The proposed change can only become effective by the ratification of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or by conventions in a like number of states. The method of ratification is left to the choice of Congress. Both methods of ratification, by Legislatures or conventions, call for action by deliberative assemblages representative of the people, which it was assumed would voice the will of the people. / “The fifth article is a grant of authority ■;by the people to Congress.. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred ■.upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by action of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or conventions in a like number of states. Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331 , 348, 15 L. Ed. 401 . The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method. Ratification might have been left to a vote of the peopl”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he power to legislate in the enactment of the laws of a state is derived from the people of the state. But the power to ratify a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution has its source in the federal Constitution.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.